unionfs on CURRENT for read only OK?

[Kris Kennaway]

On Thu, Jul 15, 2004 at 02:44:47PM -0600, Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC wrote:
> Hi
> 
> The man pages for unionfs basically say to avoid it as it has problems. 
>   However, I was wondering about people's experience with it for read 
> only mounts.  I would like to do a bunch of read only mounts.  I 
> currently use nfs with localhost: but think that performance might be 
> better with unionfs.  I kind of get the impression that the unionfs 
> problems are with read write and so would like to solicit opinions and 
> experience running on FBSD5 (CURRENT going to 5.3-R).

Sounds like you actually want nullfs, which works fine at least when
read-only.

Kris
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 187 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-current/attachments/20040715/ab2190df/attachment.bin